Categories
Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
[Closed] Recent Viewing Part III
-
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013 edited
Thor wrote
FalkirkBairn wrote
GRAVITY
This is my last 3D film. Makes film seem so unnatural for me. I felt more involved when I watched the trailer on YouTube.
Simple story well told but nothing special.
The score worked well and I like how the score marked the change in the camera's viewpoint.
i6/10 at best
You're one of the few I've talked to that aren't totally enamoured with the film. Which is fine -- wouldn't be much fun if everyone agreed. For me, though, it's the best film I've seen this year and one of the most perfect uses of 3D I've ever seen.
3D's usual trick of having items come straight out at me was an obvious "look at me, I'm 3D" gimmick and it was annoying. And the destruction sequences were better in 2D. The use of 3D added nothing positive for me.
BUT, it did look better than the upcoming Hobbit film. The 3D trailer for that was practically unwatchable.The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn -
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013 edited
Anthony wrote
I watched Pacific Rim the other day. I wouldn't have minded all the senseless robot/alien fighting except I didn't care about any of it.
host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS! -
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013
FalkirkBairn wrote
3D's usual trick of having items come straight out at me was an obvious "look at me, I'm 3D" gimmick and it was annoying. And the destruction sequences were better in 2D. The use of 3D added nothing positive for me.
I hate 3D but Gravity's 3D was not gimmicky whatsoever, IMO.
-Erik-host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS! -
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013
There were a couple of semi-gimmicky things, like loose screws floating towards you etc., but for the most part the 3D was incredibly organic and subtle in this one. Besides, the 'floating' objects added to the overall sense of weightlessness.I am extremely serious. -
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013 edited
Yeah, I agree that the 3D was not a show off. In fact, it was not so apparent and like I said before, not sure if it would have been that different in 2D (for me at least). It's a great visual film and worth seeing in cinema's. Exploding space stations without any noise are awesome.
This is completely the opposite in The Hobbit II trailer. Full of these gimmicks and things that splash around the screen. But there's the easy 2D option too for the Hobbit. So I'm not worrying that much.Kazoo -
- CommentAuthorPawelStroinski
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013
I saw Gravity in 2D and loved it to death.http://www.filmmusic.pl - Polish Film Music Review Website -
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013
I must have seen a different film then. Practically most things not bolted down drifted out of the screen - including tears! And floating-off tools floating towards the viewer and the huge GRAB out of the screen to retrieve it...all of these and more were more than distracting.
A lot of the wide shots didn't really benefit from the 3D either IMO. I would have enjoyed it a lot more in 2D: I can then make the mental leap that they are inhabiting a 3D world which we are seeing in a 2D projection.
And seeing the Gravity trailer, the orbital destruction was far more impressive in the trailer than on the (3D) big screen.
But then I'm just weird I suppose.The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn -
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013
Not weird, just...."different".
Btw, I loved the tear shot. A drop of salty water/"life juice" floating in a place where life is impossible. Added to the many 'life and birth' images of the film otherwise.I am extremely serious. -
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013
Thor wrote
Not weird, just...."different".
Btw, I loved the tear shot. A drop of salty water/"life juice" floating in a place where life is impossible. Added to the many 'life and birth' images of the film otherwise.
I now know why astronauts sleep in bags stapled to the wall - if left to float freely then everyone would just assume the fetal position.The views expressed in this post are entirely my own and do not reflect the opinions of maintitles.net, or for that matter, anyone else. http://www.racksandtags.com/falkirkbairn -
- CommentAuthorfranz_conrad
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013
Ha!
Beware also on your journey from death to rebirth out in space that you must pass through the airless void... and the fires... and the atmosphere... and the water... before you return to solid ground. It's practically a Captain Planet episode of challenges.A butterfly thinks therefore I am -
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013 edited
Thor wrote
Not weird, just...."different".
Btw, I loved the tear shot. A drop of salty water/"life juice" floating in a place where life is impossible. Added to the many 'life and birth' images of the film otherwise.
Earlier this year I watched the following video. When I saw the tear scene in Gravity I called bullshit immediately. Another example of Cauron shoving the unnecessary "life and birth" theme down our throats. We get it! Don't be so goddamn obvious about it!
EDIT - Now that I think about it, Alan, the film did have some gimmicky moments. I apologize for my earlier post!
-Erik-host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS! -
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013
FalkirkBairn wrote
Thor wrote
Not weird, just...."different".
Btw, I loved the tear shot. A drop of salty water/"life juice" floating in a place where life is impossible. Added to the many 'life and birth' images of the film otherwise.
I now know why astronauts sleep in bags stapled to the wall - if left to float freely then everyone would just assume the fetal position.
host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS! -
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013 edited
Erik Woods wrote
Thor wrote
Not weird, just...."different".
Btw, I loved the tear shot. A drop of salty water/"life juice" floating in a place where life is impossible. Added to the many 'life and birth' images of the film otherwise.
Earlier this year I watched the following video. When I saw the tear scene in Gravity I called bullshit immediately. Another example of Cauron shoving the unnecessary "life and birth" theme down our throats. We get it! Don't be so goddamn obvious about it!
The uterus-type imagery was one of my favourite parts of the film. Sometimes it's done quite subtly (like the parachutes' tentacle-type strings), other times overtly (like the iconic image with Bullock in a fetal position). Stuff like that heightenes the film to something more than just a suspense movie. Like ALIEN, in a way.
Even if tears down fall in space (like that video shows), it's a little bit of (crucial) artistic licence in a film that otherwise subscribes to a high degree of realism.I am extremely serious. -
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013 edited
I thought all the rebirth stuff was Cuaron trying to make Gravity into some sort of modern 2001: A Space Odyssey film and it all came off rather silly and at times laughable. It was all painfully obvious. There were a lot moments in the film.
-Erik-host and executive producer of THE CINEMATIC SOUND RADIO PODCAST | www.cinematicsound.net | www.facebook.com/cinematicsound | I HAVE TINNITUS! -
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013
franz_conrad wrote
Ha!
Beware also on your journey from death to rebirth out in space that you must pass through the airless void... and the fires... and the atmosphere... and the water... before you return to solid ground. It's practically a Captain Planet episode of challenges.
I was David Bowman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJS3R1Z2HeI
It would have freaked me out. But hey, I'm not Dr Floyd.Bach's music is vibrant and inspired. -
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013
Getaway (2013)
Starring Ethan Hawke , Selena Gomez , Jon Voight ...
I just saw this one and what can I say ...
LOTS of spectacular pursuits & LOTS of spectacular car crashes (I actually lost count) and that's about it !
If this is your kind of thing , you've picked the right film .
So , to put it simply it's a no brainer , just sit back and 'enjoy' the ride ..."Simplicity is the key to brilliance" -
- CommentTimeNov 17th 2013
Erik Woods wrote
I thought all the rebirth stuff was Cuaron trying to make Gravity into some sort of modern 2001: A Space Odyssey film and it all came off rather silly and at times laughable. It was all painful obvious. There were a lot moments in the film.
-Erik-
Hmmm...well, you're free to your opinion. It's obviously very different from my own experience of that particular aspect.I am extremely serious. -
- CommentTimeNov 19th 2013
Eric wrote
Getaway (2013)
Starring Ethan Hawke , Selena Gomez , Jon Voight ...
I just saw this one and what can I say ...
LOTS of spectacular pursuits & LOTS of spectacular car crashes (I actually lost count) and that's about it !
If this is your kind of thing , you've picked the right film .
So , to put it simply it's a no brainer , just sit back and 'enjoy' the ride ...
the genre is my kind of thing, Selena Gomez is definitely my kind of thing
but movies have to emotionally touch me as well, and I'm not sure if this one will do it.
Either way, will rent it eventuallywaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! Where's my nut? arrrghhhhhhh -
- CommentAuthorJosh B
- CommentTimeNov 21st 2013
Watched Iron Man 3 last night. It was alright, a little oddly paced in places. I think I'm just getting burnt out on the genre. Tyler's score was functional. I actually liked it more when he was underscoring the sensitive scenes. I've never liked his action music much and this film didn't change my mind. -
- CommentTimeNov 21st 2013
I'm not the biggest fan of Brian Tyler. I mostly like his early works. Yet Iron Man 3 was my favourite score of his in years. I thought the film was OK to pass an evening with but that is not in the same league with its predecessors.
VolkerBach's music is vibrant and inspired. -
- CommentTimeNov 24th 2013
Saw The Cell (2000) again yesterday, and like my first view I enjoyed it very much. Terrific visual style, not only the world inside the mind but also the cinematography to tell the story. The story itself is very engaging and it's a great new way to tell a serial killer thriller story. Great score by Howard Shore too, very fitting for the film and immensely captivating (even though I have a harder time accepting it outside the context)
anyway, great film that flies by incredibly fast
7 out of 10
ps, I didn't know there was a crappy sequel to this?waaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! Where's my nut? arrrghhhhhhh -
- CommentTimeNov 24th 2013
Forget the sequel Thomas ... Not worth the time ... Stick with the original ..."Simplicity is the key to brilliance" -
- CommentTimeNov 25th 2013 edited
Doctor Who: Day Of The Doctor special
I thought it would be quite a bit darker, based on the previews!
[spoiler]But overall I really rather liked it! John Hurt's "War Doctor" was a great throwback to earlier incarnations (including chanelling William Hartnell in berating his two successor's dress and style of speech).[/spoiler]
The dilemma that was presented was very Who-worthy. [spoiler]Aside from the fact that I actually found it quite moving (the nigh-finale with "the button" -yeah, even in this spoiler box I'm keeping some spoilers - unexpectedly had me choking up). And up 'till the very last minute I wasn't sure what the Doctor(s) would do: the whole history was so much of a a defined make-up of the new Doctor reboot that I am really curious how Moffat c.s. are going to address the new series now. [/spoiler]Can't wait until the Christmas special to see what dramatic tone the Doctor will take next. Peter Capaldi's got his job cut out for him!
I loved the zillions of in-jokes and references, and I thought [spoiler]"Rose's" cameo was very tastefully done (even if I don't like Billie having lost quite a bit of weight, apparently. It doesn't look good on her, happy as I am to see her.). And SO many loose ends from previous series -main one: Gallifrey's re-appearance in series 5!) were so neatly tied up that I was in fact quite impressed! [/spoiler]Very clever storytelling.
It was good seeing Tennant again.
He is very much the epitome of the 'new' Doctor to me, so that was a bit of a homecoming.
The score, unsurprisingly hinging heavily on previous themes, did not disapoint and was properly dramatic and epic where needed, subdued where required. It's a release I shall look out for once it's out.
Overall, I enjoyed this Special quite a bit more than previous years' ones.
The introspective feel and peek into the Doctor's past were well worth it and worthily executed.
The one thing I liked but did not understand was [spoiler]Tom Baker's cameo at the end.
I just didn't see the purpose other than have Who-fans go 'squeeee!'.
And if Doctor 4, why not have Doctors 5, 6 and 7 as well? I know that Colin Baker (Doctor 6) has expressed some disappointment about not even having been asked.
At least Doctor 8 (Paul McGann, the movie Doctor) has a fun appearance in one of the special teasers.
And I think Christopher Eccleston (Doctor 9, the first of the reboot) was very conspicuous by his absence...but then I gather he left the series in somewhat less than friendly spirits.[/spoiler] A shame.'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentTimeNov 25th 2013 edited
The other doctors did their own little 'thing' with the Peter Davison special "The Five(ish) Doctors". You should check that out as a supplement.
Personally, I was a bit disappointed by the 50th.
The big 'plot hole' for me is that I don't understand how this episode fits in with the ending of the last episode. How did they get from "The Name of the Doctor" to here? Doesn't make sense.
SPOILERS SECTION:
[spoiler]Also, if the Hurt doctor is supposed to forget his pocket universe rescue-thingie and go back to Galifrey to blow it up or whatever, how come he changes into Eccleston before he even gets to do that? Doesn't make sense.
A bit disappointed that they didn't make the Eccleston transition more clearly. They could have done that any number of ways without actually using the actor himself.
Also, while it was nice to see Tom Baker, what exactly is his part here? Is he supposed to be the doctor (in some alternative timeline where he gets to be old) or the actual curator, meaning it's more of an inside joke for fans. If it's the latter, I don't really like it. It's a contuinity crash. They could have written an older version of the 4th doctor into it without doing that, I think.[/spoiler]
SPOILER SECTION END.I am extremely serious. -
- CommentTimeNov 25th 2013 edited
Thor wrote
The other doctors did their own little 'thing' with the Peter Davison special "The Five(ish) Doctors". You should check that out as a supplement.
Oh! I missed that!! Cheers! I will!
The big 'plot hole' for me is that I don't understand how this episode fits in with the ending of the last episode. How did they get from "The Name of the Doctor" to here?
They don't. Not really.
The linear sequel to that one is the upcoming Christmas special.
This is of course the problem with time travel stories: things that seem out of sequence only are so by linear reckoning.
From Doctor 11's comments it seemed clear to me that the events at the end of Season 7 were "on hold" (i.e. happening in the linear past or future", while all of this was going on.
I.e. the information from this special is something that should be happening/have happened (ARGH! we need a special conjugation for time travel!) during "linear time" end of season 7 episode, but, in the Doctor's OWN timelines, right after or before it (it's not entirely clear: that should be cleared up at the beginning of the Christmas special when we get to see how Doctor 11 actually reacts to the appearance of the War Doctor).
SPOILERS SECTION:
[spoiler]Also, if the Hurt doctor is supposed to forget his pocket universe rescue-thingie and go back to Galifrey to blow it up or whatever, how come he changes into Eccleston before he even gets to do that? Doesn't make sense.[/spoiler]
The suggestion is that the [spoiler]body is simply worn out. Hurt's War Doctor even expresses surprise that it hadn't happened earlier.[/spoiler]
[spoiler]A bit disappointed that they didn't make the Eccleston transition more clearly. They could have done that any number of ways without actually using the actor himself.[/spoiler]
Oh, I don't know. I thought [spoiler]the 'ears'reference[/spoiler] was pretty blatant.
[spoiler]Also, while it was nice to see Tom Baker, what exactly is his part here? [/spoiler]
Agree. That irked me too.
Like you, I think it was just to cater to [spoiler]hard-core fans, breaking the third wall, without any eye to continuity.
Normally I don't really mind that, but the rest of the episode was set up as a very interesting excercise in layman's quantum mechanics, and this just jarred.
And again, if it was just for fangasms, I feel they should have gotten the other doctors involved as well. [/spoiler]'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentTimeNov 25th 2013
Eric wrote
Forget the sequel Thomas ... Not worth the time
ohhh, I wasn't going towaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!! Where's my nut? arrrghhhhhhh -
- CommentTimeNov 25th 2013
Cumbersome to do all this with a myriad of spoiler tags, but I guess we have to do that.
I.e. the information from this special is something that should be happening/have happened (ARGH! we need a special conjugation for time travel!) during "linear time" end of season 7 episode, but, in the Doctor's OWN timelines, right after or before it (it's not entirely clear: that should be cleared up at the beginning of the Christmas special when we get to see how Doctor 11 actually reacts to the appearance of the War Doctor).
I certainly hope so. But if the events of 50th happened BEFORE "Name" at some point -- between other televised adventures -- the big confrontation in the cave would make no sense. The Hurt doctor had his story in the 50th. What is the purpose of him now (a brief 'hello' and thanks for the last time?)? If it happened AFTER, it still wouldn't make sense because it still doesn't account for the gap, and they seem to see him for the first time in the 50th.
I'm VERY surprised this isn't the talk of the town among Whovians. Either I'm missing something terribly obvious or they don't care about it at all.
The suggestion is that the [spoiler]body is simply worn out. Hurt's War Doctor even expresses surprise that it hadn't happened earlier.[/spoiler]
True. But isn't he supposed to go [spoiler]back to Gallifrey to burn it -- oblivious of the fact that he's saved the planet in an alternate timeline he's forgotten?[/spoiler]
Oh, I don't know. I thought [spoiler]the 'ears'reference[/spoiler] was pretty blatant. [/spoiler]
In a way, yeah, but[spoiler] they could have given some visual clues as well -- the clothing, a shadow, CGI, an existing line, whatever. Since I'm now a continuity completist, I prefer all the regenerations to be obvious.[/spoiler]I am extremely serious. -
- CommentTimeNov 25th 2013
Martijn wrote
Thor wrote
The other doctors did their own little 'thing' with the Peter Davison special "The Five(ish) Doctors". You should check that out as a supplement.
Oh! I missed that!! Cheers! I will!
Just saw it.
30 minutes of one's time well-spent.
I only now realise that Colin was only playing up to the joke when twittering about having been annoyed not even having been asked.
Very funny indeed!'no passion nor excitement here, despite all the notes and musicians' ~ Falkirkbairn -
- CommentTimeNov 25th 2013
Continued in Part IV.Kazoo -
- CommentTimeNov 26th 2013
Please continue. I am sorry. I had the impression your post was conclusive to the above Martijn.Kazoo